1) I have zero experience with 5th edition D&D, or any edition, really. But I recently got my hands on a few books, and I'm itching to learn it. 2) I have no idea if a contemporary fantasy werewolf setting is even compatible with D&D. I now know that it is compatible, but I'm also open to non werewolf campaigns. 3) It would be so awesome if we could do this as a group with a dedicated game night, via mumble, or something.

With those three things stated, I want to play in a group with these three criteria. I know it's demanding, and I'm probably not going to get anyone interested in this, there is probably zero chance that a DM will want to touch this with a stick, but you know that old saying, you don't receive if you never ask. So this is me asking. Is there anyone out there interested in doing something like this? Is there a DM with enough time/patience/willingness to lead such a group? I'm not asking for the razzle dazzle, but something simple and fun would be great!

I'm also way open for this to be something not werewolf related. I'm really just looking for something contemporary using the 5th edition D&D, so I can get my toes wet, so to speak. I'll edit the title of this thread to reflect this.

What exactly do you mean by contemporary? Doesn't contemporary mean the present, so you want a 5th ed fantasy game set in our world today? So urban fantasy? Or do you mean set in the time of werewolf legends, so middle age era Europe? A bit of Gothic fantasy?

What exactly do you mean by contemporary? Doesn't contemporary mean the present, so you want a 5th ed fantasy game set in our world today? So urban fantasy? Or do you mean set in the time of werewolf legends, so middle age era Europe? A bit of Gothic fantasy?

When I used contemporary, I was using it to mean present; so urban fantasy, yes.

When I used contemporary, I was using it to mean present; so urban fantasy, yes.

That may be a bit of a problem. Adding werewolves to D&D is easy, but modernizing it requires a bit more effort. I am not sure what fire arms Kolbrandr was referring to, but I suspect they were early weapons, pistols and muskets. Stating fully automatic weapons would be a bit trickier. Not impossibly, but its fiddly to add them a system that wasn't built with them in mind, especially one designed to not allow full round action (which is the easiest way to distinguish single shot and semi/full automatic fire).

You'd also need to re-jig the skill system to include some modern things. Computing at the very least, possibly repair and drive too. Maybe some other things I cannot think of at the moment.

Finally there's changes to the dynamics of the game, with the default weapon of human enemies and law enforcement officers becoming ranged rather than melee.

So whilst certainly possibly, I think it would require a bit of work. I don't mean to sound negative, but unless you manage to separate the real world and the magic one (like the way Harry Potter did), it seems like this game would need some not insignificant homebrew before it could even start.

I'm referring to that 267-268 in the DMG stats up modern firearms, grenades, and what have you, dynamite even. The big differential they make to weapons with automatic fire is that in the case of rifles, they get burst fire, and otherwise things like the automatic pistol fire more shots before reloading.

Now, you might not like the way the way D&D handles modern firearms, which you can still only attack with as many times as you can attack with ranged weapons in a round, barring burst fire, but they put them in there.

That said, its a little more complicated than just coming up with costs for them, because my previous point about game balance still stands. The fire arms sections mentioned "elements of modern earth", making it clear these are intended as special toys for the PCs and maybe a select few enemies, not as the default weapons of the setting. There's also the mentioned proficiency problem, and with the shift from melee to range, many classes abilities become less viable.

With these weapons, your average mook ranged attacks for like 2d6+2 damage at minimum, and could potentially be dealing 2d8+2 in a 10ft area, completely bypassing AC. At the very least you'd want to start characters at level 3 or something, and even then combat is going to be much more deadly.

Again, not really, in the DMG itself it notes in the brief little blurb in the book they threw in the rules for such things in order to help with everything from running games set in the Renaissance (as far as early firearms, though I sigh that they think the Three Musketeers counts as "set in the Renaissance", but that's a sigh for another conversation), to indeed as you note the "crashed ship has modern technology", to, as they say, campaigns that contain modern day elements. Proficiency in firearms is noted as something the DM can decide if it fits their setting or not, with the note that with most settings, it would not. In a modern setting, or one with modern elements, it's not hard to note that firearms, if common, fall under martial weapons proficiency like anything else that does.

In that sense, while there are problems, the proficiency problem isn't really at all one of them.

Now, they don't give you much beyond firearms and explosives. Vehicles certainly would be nice to have stats for, but 5e is, for better or worse the "handwave" edition, giving you the tools for boom boom sticks and kersploding things is pretty much a big part of the fundamentals.

Also, while, yes, like when in Pathfinder for instance, you make guns commonplace and a martial weapon it fundamentally shifts the nature of combat as far as things like how much damage anyone with martial weapons proficiency can do, for some reason guns don't ignore armor in the DMG outside of burst fire, so it's not as bad as it could be.

Beyond that, I mean, guns would certainly fundamentally shift the nature of combat, allowing the equivalent of mooks to do a lot more damage and make the whole thing rougher. It's a hilarious word to use in context of D&D, but that's just the realistic consequence of guns. Characters that are standing out and dealing with that would indeed be higher level, and the various martial classes should all get the ranged fighting style, at minimum, and while the monk's arrow deflection works just fine against guns under the rules, the damage it deals with should likely get an increase. Other changes would be needed besides, but it's not impossible to make them. Like I said up above, the nuts and bolts are there to work with.

Other changes would be needed besides, but it's not impossible to make them. Like I said up above, the nuts and bolts are there to work with.

Sure, I never said it was impossibly, just that you'll need a bit more than what is already given to you. Homebrewing ranged fighting style for each martial class is no minor tweak, and this is especially significant since this is apparently Dis's first 5e game.

Speaking of which, sorry to hijack your thread Dis, although I do have to ask:How fixed is the contemporary 5e combination? Because just one of those is easily doable, but as shown by my discussion with Kolbrandr, doing them both together is a little tricky. Would this bother you, because if not I'll see what I can throw together for ranged combat styles.

Of all the tweaks you'd need to make, that one would be the smallest. Every martial class that gets fighting styles but the paladin already gets the ranged fighting style (while called archery, it adds an attack bonus for all ranged attacks, you just change the name), for the paladin that just means adding one more fighting style to their list.

Firearms aren't treated under the rules as anything more than a ranged weapon attack that does more damage and has a burst fire rule for automatic rifles, as far as anything that applies to ranged weapon attacks thus applying to them.

The main fighty class that gets super hosed here is the barbarian, which you can, well, just not have barbarians, as a sad casualty of a modern world in which the barbarian has no place, or do something like increase their armor bonus ability thing.

Again there are definitely a bunch of decisions a prospective GM of this thing would have to make, but a few of them are all the same easy stuff. There's even some stuff on the wizards website that explores some alt rules for doing a modern campaign (they give armor damage reduction for instance, and opt to make proficiency with firearms rare despite the commonality (as in you'd need class levels in a martial class basically, which, mooks don't necessarily have.) I don't myself agree with a bunch of that, but it's one way to go if you're looking for more balance by contrast. Certainly armor bonus+damage reduction+rarity of attacking with proficiency bonus removes some of the lethality of combat with common guns).

Of all the tweaks you'd need to make, that one would be the smallest. Every martial class that gets fighting styles but the paladin already gets the ranged fighting style (while called archery, it adds an attack bonus for all ranged attacks, you just change the name), for the paladin that just means adding one more fighting style to their list.

That's a little boring. In 5e, a melee focused game, melee had about 5 different choices for fighting styles. If 5e becomes more ranged focused, then ranged should get more options.

The main fighty class that gets super hosed here is the barbarian, which you can, well, just not have barbarians, as a sad casualty of a modern world in which the barbarian has no place, or do something like increase their armor bonus ability thing.

Paladins lose divine smite, their biggest source of damage, and hunters and battles masters lose a lot of tricks. Monks likewise lose out on a lot.

That a really good idea for a modern game, but only helps the classes who wear medium+ armour. Dr 2 doesn't compensate enough for the damage boost.

And again, nearly all the martial style classes but for the barbarian gets proficiency with medium armor. The classes that don't are throwing a lot of magic around anyway, are rogues, or are monks.

Quote

Paladins lose divine smite, their biggest source of damage, and hunters and battles masters lose a lot of tricks. Monks likewise lose out on a lot.

Halve divine smite damage and let it apply to ranged damage, let hunters apply colossus slayer and horde breaker to range (volley obviously needs no change), let various battle master abilities also apply to ranged and reskin a couple of them and they're now trick shooting. Improve the monk armor bonus and deflection damage mitigation (hell, let them do it twice a round or some such) and they can just fine be the guys who kung fu wuxia matrix their way through being shot at, then hit people.

Quote

That's a little boring. In 5e, a melee focused game, melee had about 5 different choices for fighting styles. If 5e becomes more ranged focused, then ranged should get more options.

It honestly feels like the idea of doing contemporary 5e is mostly something you want to convince the OP or myself or whoever might read this thread is a terrible idea to even try, when you're responding to stuff with not even about balance, but just calling it boring.

It feels like ell could use a player's seeking group forum rule of "if you don't like the player's idea, you don't have to post, but it's incredibly bad form to post to tell them why their idea is wrong to have."

Contemporary 5e is frankly not as hard as you're trying to present it. It requires some work, it's not insurmountable, and acknowledging having to trade off a few things is hardly the most odious thing in the world.

Speaking of which, sorry to hijack your thread Dis, although I do have to ask:How fixed is the contemporary 5e combination? Because just one of those is easily doable, but as shown by my discussion with Kolbrandr, doing them both together is a little tricky. Would this bother you, because if not I'll see what I can throw together for ranged combat styles.

Well to be honest, I'm more interested in the modern slant, than I am in the D20 system being 5th edition. So if there's another system that you know that would work better, I'm up to learning it. On that note, have you looked at urban arcana? It seems really similar to D&D, but it has all the info needed for something modern.

And again, nearly all the martial style classes but for the barbarian gets proficiency with medium armor. The classes that don't are throwing a lot of magic around anyway, are rogues, or are monks.

This is probably the biggest problem at this stage. Yes, they all get medium armour (except for monks and rogues, not sure what you were saying about them), but they now pretty much have to use them, where as in 5e, you could make a dex based paladin in light armour. Also, what about the arcane classes? Do they all need to use some of their spells to protect against ranged attacks, because that will be tough to ration at low levels.

Halve divine smite damage and let it apply to ranged damage, let hunters apply colossus slayer and horde breaker to range (volley obviously needs no change), let various battle master abilities also apply to ranged and reskin a couple of them and they're now trick shooting. Improve the monk armor bonus and deflection damage mitigation (hell, let them do it twice a round or some such) and they can just fine be the guys who kung fu wuxia matrix their way through being shot at, then hit people.

That's some pretty solid ideas there. Divine smite would probably be balanced at 1d4 instead of d8. Battle Master would probably lose lunge attack, and sweeping attack becomes a little problematic with ranged weapons since bullets tend not to change directions. Maybe change that to increase the burst area for automatic weapons? Riposte could probably work as swapping melee for range, but what about parry? Just refluff it as dodge, since it is similar to uncanny dodge?

Hunters get stand against the tide, which forces a creature who misses them with a melee attack to redirect it against an ally. Do they get that with all ranged attacks?

What about rogues sneak attack? With less melee they may find it harder to qualify. Is it enough to up the damage to d8 instead of d6?

It honestly feels like the idea of doing contemporary 5e is mostly something you want to convince the OP or myself or whoever might read this thread is a terrible idea to even try, when you're responding to stuff with not even about balance, but just calling it boring.

It is objectively more boring to go from having 5 options to having just 1. This isn't me nit picking.

Fortunately a lot of the melee stuff can actually just be re purposed for ranged . Duel wielding could work with pistols (although this may be a bit unbalanced, given how much damage they do). Damage reroll could work with rifles. Dueling could work with one handed weapons (though again, it would probably need a damage boost to keep up dual wielding). However, this does leave archer/gunplay looking pretty good, so aybe the attack bonus of that should be halved to +1.

It feels like ell could use a player's seeking group forum rule of "if you don't like the player's idea, you don't have to post, but it's incredibly bad form to post to tell them why their idea is wrong to have."

I'm not. Together we've doing some pretty solid ground work for a modern 5e. My one concern is such changes maybe aren't the best for a first time player, but that's up to Dis and not me.

Well to be honest, I'm more interested in the modern slant, than I am in the D20 system being 5th edition. So if there's another system that you know that would work better, I'm up to learning it. On that note, have you looked at urban arcana? It seems really similar to D&D, but it has all the info needed for something modern.

I'm honestly not sure, since I don't use D&D for modern fantasy anymore. Urban arcane would benefit from being developed with a more modern focus, but I wasn't too impressed with d20 modern, and I think 5e may be a better system to port into the modern world than 3.5 was. You don't want to use WoD or Shadowrun? If not, I'd say 5e is your best bet.

Well to be honest, I'm more interested in the modern slant, than I am in the D20 system being 5th edition. So if there's another system that you know that would work better, I'm up to learning it. On that note, have you looked at urban arcana? It seems really similar to D&D, but it has all the info needed for something modern.

You could just use d20 modern then, but bear in mind it is based off 3.5, which compared to 5e is extremely complex to learn, and generally on ell mostly turns into a festival of min maxing and rules exploits.

That's some pretty solid ideas there. Divine smite would probably be balanced at 1d4 instead of d8. Battle Master would probably lose lunge attack, and sweeping attack becomes a little problematic with ranged weapons since bullets tend not to change directions. Maybe change that to increase the burst area for automatic weapons? Riposte could probably work as swapping melee for range, but what about parry? Just refluff it as dodge, since it is similar to uncanny dodge?

You could just reskin sweep, with Battlemaster kinda turning into some John Woo style Golden Gunman, as that sweep is firing off a barrage of shots. Basically you sort of self retcon that if you get in a sweep attack, you were so awesome that you squeezed off multiple shots at multiple dudes and they all took.

You can keep lunge, I mean, melee will still happen one imagines for various reasons, you don't need to lose everything that helps with it.

You can just refluff parry as dodge really, yeah.

Quote

This is probably the biggest problem at this stage. Yes, they all get medium armour (except for monks and rogues, not sure what you were saying about them), but they now pretty much have to use them, where as in 5e, you could make a dex based paladin in light armour. Also, what about the arcane classes? Do they all need to use some of their spells to protect against ranged attacks, because that will be tough to ration at low levels.

Ultimately you accept that certain builds just don't work in a modern thing. That if you want to play a guy dodging the crap out of gunfire and closing to end you with melee, you make an improved monk (and you improve the monks, obviously).

If you accept how guns work from that article (though again, I don't quite myself), the arcane classes are fine within the context of that everything is all the same a measure more lethal. Otherwise, arcane casters will be using magic to protect themselves, and you just start things at something like 5-7th level so that they have more spell slots to do that with.

Quote

Hunters get stand against the tide, which forces a creature who misses them with a melee attack to redirect it against an ally. Do they get that with all ranged attacks?

Why not? Maybe they dodged so well that the guy attacking them shot their ally instead.

Quote

What about rogues sneak attack? With less melee they may find it harder to qualify. Is it enough to up the damage to d8 instead of d6?

drop it to d4 and let them do it on range. Or halve the die pool (minimum 1) and let them do it on range. And let them do full pool/full dice on melee.

Quote

Fortunately a lot of the melee stuff can actually just be re purposed for ranged . Duel wielding could work with pistols (although this may be a bit unbalanced, given how much damage they do). Damage reroll could work with rifles. Dueling could work with one handed weapons (though again, it would probably need a damage boost to keep up dual wielding). However, this does leave archer/gunplay looking pretty good, so aybe the attack bonus of that should be halved to +1.

Have dual wielding pistols only do 1 die of damage on the second gun instead of the 2d whatever guns get. Maybe have to take a feat as well to get full damage with the second gun and be all John Woo doves flying around. You've certainly paid for it at that point, given the small amount of feats you get in 5e.

I'm honestly not sure, since I don't use D&D for modern fantasy anymore. Urban arcane would benefit from being developed with a more modern focus, but I wasn't too impressed with d20 modern, and I think 5e may be a better system to port into the modern world than 3.5 was. You don't want to use WoD or Shadowrun? If not, I'd say 5e is your best bet.

Yeah, the reviews for UA weren't really that steller. But I was being optimistic and hoped it was better than what people were saying. And yeah, I agree with you about 5e being better to run than 3.5; mainly because I have the 5e books, so it's easier for me to learn. I actually have Shadowrun 5e books in my computer and tablet, and while I adore the setting, it can get a bit complicated to me. Especially since the setting is more futuristic than it is modern. I would be interested in learning WoD, so if you want to go down that route, I'd be down to learn it.

I just haven't really had a chance to play a system game, and get into it. I have the books for a few systems, but I'm a complete noob, tbh.

You could just use d20 modern then, but bear in mind it is based off 3.5, which compared to 5e is extremely complex to learn, and generally on ell mostly turns into a festival of min maxing and rules exploits.

You could just reskin sweep, with Battlemaster kinda turning into some John Woo style Golden Gunman, as that sweep is firing off a barrage of shots. Basically you sort of self retcon that if you get in a sweep attack, you were so awesome that you squeezed off multiple shots at multiple dudes and they all took.

Ultimately you accept that certain builds just don't work in a modern thing. That if you want to play a guy dodging the crap out of gunfire and closing to end you with melee, you make an improved monk (and you improve the monks, obviously).

Possibly yeah, although maybe cover rules could be expanded upon so that cover also gives you resistance vs. ballistic attack? Losing archetypes is unavoidable, but losing the entire light armour archetype is a pretty big loss. What buffs would you suggest for the monk? Uncanny dodge vs. ranged attacks/bullet catching? Anything else?

If you accept how guns work from that article (though again, I don't quite myself), the arcane classes are fine within the context of that everything is all the same a measure more lethal. Otherwise, arcane casters will be using magic to protect themselves, and you just start things at something like 5-7th level so that they have more spell slots to do that with.

That works, but it would be a shame is Dis wanted a lower level game. Maybe the above cover rules could help with that.

drop it to d4 and let them do it on range. Or halve the die pool (minimum 1) and let them do it on range. And let them do full pool/full dice on melee.

Rogues already get SA on range. They get SA when they attack with advantage, or attack a target with has another enemy within 5ft. The first remains unchanged, but with a reduced emphasis on melee, the second will be harder to trigger.

Have dual wielding pistols only do 1 die of damage on the second gun instead of the 2d whatever guns get. Maybe have to take a feat as well to get full damage with the second gun and be all John Woo doves flying around. You've certainly paid for it at that point, given the small amount of feats you get in 5e.

That's a good idea and a feat is a fair price to pay, however if the feat variant human is allowed, someone can do 4d6+3 damage spread across two attacks at level 1, so you should probably allow one or the other, but not both.

Min Maxing, terms like that basically refer to building your character in such a way that manipulates the system for maximum character effectiveness/ability in ways the system was often not really built to handle, and generally requiring a level of mastery of that system most players don't have, leading you to also wildly blow past/render ineffective the other players, which in online gaming is often intentional. It makes me sort of sigh really. It can obviously, easily be stopped by a GM going "nope", but it's actually kinda rare that they will.

Think of it like God modding in freeform, kinda.

If you're pondering the WoD, I would suggest the Old World of Darkness over the new, simply for that while the OWoD system is sort of.. adorably broken, to put it one way, the NWoD is more complex.

Rogues already get SA on range. They get SA when they attack with advantage, or attack a target with has another enemy within 5ft. The first remains unchanged, but with a reduced emphasis on melee, the second will be harder to trigger.

Ugh, my brain skipped on rogues. If you want to play up ambush, rogues and guns, you change the second to being able to trigger it when the Rogue has been able to set up a crossfire, of the sort Robert DeNiro mocks in Ronin but we're hardly in any land so gritty and non fictional so they instead get to work. So basically him and his buddy shooting from opposite angles/opposite sides, something like that. Happens as a result of maneuvering around thus.

Quote

What buffs would you suggest for the monk? Uncanny dodge vs. ranged attacks/bullet catching? Anything else?

Improve their armor bonus, give them an extra deflection/dodge/etc. vs ranged. Those should cover it. Maybe improve their unarmed movement as well a bit, the better to let them close with dudes.

Quote

That's a good idea and a feat is a fair price to pay, however if the feat variant human is allowed, someone can do 4d6+3 damage spread across two attacks at level 1, so you should probably allow one or the other, but not both.

Anywho.. if you want to keep the light armor archetype as viable in a world o firearms... well, again, that article, the way it changes firearms proficiency bonus keeps light armor still being somewhat useful, to a point (though again, not a personal fan!)

Otherwise you acknowledge to yourself straight up that you are indeed running wuxia/the matrix/the Arrow television series/Metal Gear Solid where training really hard lets you become some crazy scale warrior that can take on groups of gunmen even though you have a bow or a katana or a longsword something, and you go with the following:

Monk ranged weapon deflection is now also a feat, and also people can do it with weapons or shields or what have you. Give it a light or no armor requirement. If you want to be someone in light/no armor messing up dudes with guns, you take the feat. Monks can also take the feat which means with extra deflection, they can now deflect three (or four, if you let the feat also have two deflections, though that's likely a bit much) times, which means Monks are totally living in the matrix now (this is not a bad thing per se). Throw in a dodge feat that gives an ac bonus for anyone in light or no armor, maybe +1 or +2. So you can still be the lightly armored warrior, but you are paying for it in a not small way.

Min Maxing, terms like that basically refer to building your character in such a way that manipulates the system for maximum character effectiveness/ability in ways the system was often not really built to handle, and generally requiring a level of mastery of that system most players don't have, leading you to also wildly blow past/render ineffective the other players, which in online gaming is often intentional. It makes me sort of sigh really. It can obviously, easily be stopped by a GM going "nope", but it's actually kinda rare that they will.

Think of it like God modding in freeform, kinda.

If you're pondering the WoD, I would suggest the Old World of Darkness over the new, simply for that while the OWoD system is sort of.. adorably broken, to put it one way, the NWoD is more complex.

Ooh now I get it, and it makes sense to me now!

Yeah, I hear good things about WoD, so I'd be chill learning it, either edition.

Anywho.. if you want to keep the light armor archetype as viable in a world o firearms... well, again, that article, the way it changes firearms proficiency bonus keeps light armor still being somewhat useful, to a point (though again, not a personal fan!)

Otherwise you acknowledge to yourself straight up that you are indeed running wuxia/the matrix/the Arrow television series/Metal Gear Solid where training really hard lets you become some crazy scale warrior that can take on groups of gunmen even though you have a bow or a katana or a longsword something, and you go with the following:

Monk ranged weapon deflection is now also a feat, and also people can do it with weapons or shields or what have you. Give it a light or no armor requirement. If you want to be someone in light/no armor messing up dudes with guns, you take the feat. Monks can also take the feat which means with extra deflection, they can now deflect three (or four, if you let the feat also have two deflections, though that's likely a bit much) times, which means Monks are totally living in the matrix now (this is not a bad thing per se). Throw in a dodge feat that gives an ac bonus for anyone in light or no armor, maybe +1 or +2. So you can still be the lightly armored warrior, but you are paying for it in a not small way.

I will admit that I initially wanted to play this game because of a teen wolf fic where the characters played a relatively normal version of themselves playing out the plot of the show in a D&D campaign. So yeah, your concept of this game being like an action show/movie is basically spot on.